The Atlanta constitution. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1885-19??, 1887-11-01
THE FIGHT FOR LIFE.
Argument Before the United
States Supreme Court
IN THE CASE OF THE ANARCHISTS

WAsHrNGTcS, October 27.-The anticipation
of an argument before the United States SUI
premc court today on petition for a writ of
error in the Chicago anarchists case attracted
to the capitol crowds of eager people who
seemed as anxious to gain admission to the
court room as if the anarchists themselves
were to be present in chains and leg-fetters
and argue their own case in person.
General u. +. Butler asked the court how
much time would be allowed for argument.
His brother, MIR. Tucker represented he said,
n majority OF the petitioners. He himself rep
resented two of them, of whose cases were in
some respect different from those of the 9TH
ers. lie would not speak merely for the sake
RED
The chief justice asked how much time he
desired. General Butler said he would like an
hour and a half for himself, and an hour and
"A half for his associate, Tucker.
The chief justice said: every we'll, we will
allow you three hours on side
At quarter past one j. Randolph Tucker
opened the argument i'll support of the petition
for "A writ of error. He said that it was not
necessary for him to show, as a condition pre-
cedent to the granting of the writ, that the ac-
ton complained Of in the court below was
actually repugnant to or in violation of the con-
stitution. 1t was only necessary to show that
conflict had arisen; that there was question
whether the action complained of was not re-
pugnant to the constitution. That was enough
to give this court jurisdiction 1t was the
object of the statute of 1861 to give free access
TO this court in all cases where there was a
question of this kind. 1t was not necessary to
show repugnance, but only conflict, If there
is a conflict then this court has jurisdiction,
and if II has jurisdiction then the petitioners
are entitled to their writ rs a right.
This court" said Mr.. Tucker, sis the city
OF refuge from the avenger of blood. and any
man who comes here and takes hold of the
horns of Justice, should not be repulsed. The
policy Of this court, he said, had been TO deal
literally with petitions for writs of error in
civil cases. How much more should it deal
literally with petition for a writ OF error in
criminal case, involving the issue OF life and
DEATH in a case where life was about to be
taken way in violation of the constitution"
Mr.. Tucker quoted the 18th amendment and
discussed the meaning of the words, due pro-
cess Of law" and said that, although it had
been held by this court that trial without in
dictment by grand jury might be due pro-
cess Of law and might be perfectly Constltu-
tional, it had never been held nor intimated
that trial by petit jury could be dispensed
with. 1t seemed, he said, to be everywhere
conceded that the due process of law re-
quired trial by q jury of ones peers. After
quoting eopiously from authorities and adiudged
cases in support of this position, Mr.. Tucker
said
Now. if have succeeded in showing that "due
process of law means trial by jury the question
arises what kind of jury, for it is of essence of
jtry trial that 1t shall not be before packed jury
that juror shall not have made up his mind be-
fore the case is heard that 1 ought to be hanged